Because it is the Spirit that give life, and Christ's words were that His flesh us food and His blood is drink, and then commanded us to eat His flesh and drink His blood. These words give us life, but like all of His other words, we have to follow them in order to receive the life that is in them.

[/quote]Matthew 26:29

Why would Jesus speak figuratively of his blood as the "fruit of the vine" if it was his literal blood?[/quote]

Can someone also explain to me how the human nature of Christ, one of the two natures of Christ which are distinct, yet in union and not transferable to one another (or each would not remain two distinct and separate natures in union) can be physically omnipresent in the Eucharist? If that were so, then his human nature would not be 100% man as a man can only be present in one place at one time.

It is for the same reason that He was able to walk through walls and doors and His closest disciples were unable to immediately recognize Him after the resurrection until after He did something to reveal His identity to them, one of which was "the breaking of the bread".

Can someone also explain to me how the human nature of Christ, one of the two natures of Christ which are distinct, yet in union and not transferable to one another (or each would not remain two distinct and separate natures in union) can be physically omnipresent in the Eucharist? If that were so, then his human nature would not be 100% man as a man can only be present in one place at one time.

Melodist replies well here, too, but I will add this- how is it that the Lamb, who we have records of having been slain around 33 AD with plenty of human witnesses, was slain before the foundation of the cosmos (Rev 13:, yet is also stated to have made that sacrifice at the end of the ages (Heb 9:26) especially if the sacrifice was one and forever (Heb 10:12)? Christ, though still retaining (indeed, having glorified) His human nature, is no longer subject to the boundaries of time and space since His Ascension (and possibly before even that, His Resurrection).

Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are." TH White

Can someone also explain to me how the human nature of Christ, one of the two natures of Christ which are distinct, yet in union and not transferable to one another (or each would not remain two distinct and separate natures in union) can be physically omnipresent in the Eucharist? If that were so, then his human nature would not be 100% man as a man can only be present in one place at one time.

Can you explain to me how 5 loaves and 2 fish filled the bellies of 5000 people plus 12 baskets? Others are not wrong to point out to you that Christ's glorified human body is not necessarily subject to the same rules as (what we consider) 'normal' human nature, but we really don't even have to go that far in speculating about what is 'natural' to such a body.

Also, it's incorrect to say that His body is 'omnipresent'. It is present on the altar, in the chalice, in the body of believers, but it is not in the trunk of my car, it is not my computer screen, it is not on the moon (at least not until a church is built there). It is certainly present in more places than can be explained any way but miraculously (although, again, it is a miracle Christ actually demonstrated), but it is still present in only a finite number of places. There is no confusion between the human nature and Divine omnipresence in this.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

Do I believe that I am smarter, or somehow more intelligent, or better informed than the “Fathers” or the “Martyrs?”

No, because:(1) I do not know, I rely on scripture (2) in my reliance on Scripture, I am relying on what God has told me in 1 Corinthians 2:16 – I have the mind of Christ.

These things are not stated in my defense or as applying to me alone. These statements are true of any and all believers. A believer is one as defined in John 3:1‐18.

First of all your use of quote marks sickens me. These people died for Christ, show some respect.

Second, you also spit on the Anglicans and many Lutherans who also hold to the Real Presence out of a sense of sola scriptura. In fact, you've never met anyone more hard headed than a Lutheran defending Real Presence and they act exactly like you, "I'm just saying what Scripture says!" So, do they also have the mind of Christ?

Do the Jehovah's Witnesses who deny the Trinity and claim Christ is an angel possess the mind of Christ? How do you know they don't? Because Scripture plainly contradicts them? Well, they would also say Scripture plainly contradicts you?

See what I'm getting at? I'm not saying Orthodoxy does not share problems of knowing just what the Scriptures are saying, Tradition isn't a "magic bullet" that removes the need for critical thought, but it seems to me that relying on the witness of a existing body of believers that has been unanimous on the broad points (not saying their haven't been conflicts but the main doctrines of Orthodoxy are pretty much traceable in the Fathers back to the Apostolic age) makes a lot more sense that relying on yourself as an independent conduit of the Spirit who could theoretically be the last sane man on earth and the last true believer.

Do I believe that I am smarter, or somehow more intelligent, or better informed than the “Fathers” or the “Martyrs?”

No, because:(1) I do not know, I rely on scripture (2) in my reliance on Scripture, I am relying on what God has told me in 1 Corinthians 2:16 – I have the mind of Christ.

These things are not stated in my defense or as applying to me alone. These statements are true of any and all believers. A believer is one as defined in John 3:1‐18.

First of all your use of quote marks sickens me. These people died for Christ, show some respect.

Second, you also spit on the Anglicans and many Lutherans who also hold to the Real Presence out of a sense of sola scriptura. In fact, you've never met anyone more hard headed than a Lutheran defending Real Presence and they act exactly like you, "I'm just saying what Scripture says!" So, do they also have the mind of Christ?

Do the Jehovah's Witnesses who deny the Trinity and claim Christ is an angel possess the mind of Christ? How do you know they don't? Because Scripture plainly contradicts them? Well, they would also say Scripture plainly contradicts you?

See what I'm getting at? I'm not saying Orthodoxy does not share problems of knowing just what the Scriptures are saying, Tradition isn't a "magic bullet" that removes the need for critical thought, but it seems to me that relying on the witness of a existing body of believers that has been unanimous on the broad points (not saying their haven't been conflicts but the main doctrines of Orthodoxy are pretty much traceable in the Fathers back to the Apostolic age) makes a lot more sense that relying on yourself as an independent conduit of the Spirit who could theoretically be the last sane man on earth and the last true believer.

Piggy backing off my last post, now addressing FountainPen:

See where I'm going with this? You (the generic you) may not be a Lone Ranger, the only person in the world who's correct, now but there's nothing stopping you from being such in theory. Where's the importance of community in that? That's my biggest problem with the way you're reading Matthew 16. God wants to preserve a family, not a group of dead and alive ships passing in the night who just happen to share the same beliefs and atomic relationship to Him almost by accident.

Just as bread and wine can be Body and Blood, so can words be Spirit and Life. See how this words? What God does is not what man does. He thoughts are not our thoughts, and His works are not our works. Just because Jesus Christ speaks Spirit and Life does not mean He does not use words. The words don't stop being words, just as the form of bread and wine remain the same.

Do you see the comparison? If His words can be something else in addition to their common existence, so can other things.

As for the passage in St. Matthew, it is plainly obvious what is happening: He is preparing to be arrested and crucified, something the Apostles do not yet understand (which is why they run).

The fulfillment of the Eucharist is the New Jerusalem, when we are resurrected with Him and the final re-communion of God and man is accomplished. Until that time, we drink of the cup as He commanded us.

Can someone also explain to me how the human nature of Christ, one of the two natures of Christ which are distinct, yet in union and not transferable to one another (or each would not remain two distinct and separate natures in union) can be physically omnipresent in the Eucharist? If that were so, then his human nature would not be 100% man as a man can only be present in one place at one time.

Can a fully human person be hung from a Cross until dead and then physically resurrect? Can a person come back to life and have someone else actually put his hand into his wounds?

Can God Almighty be present in the form of bread and wine if he wills it... ?

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

I've never quite understood the Protestant objection to the Eucharist. Everything else in Christianity is just as improbably: the Trinity, the Incarnate God, Baptism, the indwelling Holy Spirit, etc.

I think you would have just as hard of a time convincing a die-hard atheist that the bread and wine are Body and Blood as you would convincing him that God dwells within you and speaks to you!

From pure physics, nothing of Christianity makes sense. It all appears to be impossible nonsense, and so you can't really use a strictly rational process to figure it out. If you did, I think that I could very easily disprove all of it, and even the faith of those who 'claim' to have the Holy Spirit but are such reprehensible fools that their claims of divine connection automatically exclude any such possibility: a perfect Being would not waste His time with such a transparently self-impressed moron.

We are all poor representatives of Him.

At the same time, if one approaches not from the 'how' but from the 'what,' it all is obvious. The Church has outlasted horrific persecution and decadence, heresy and carelessness, hyper-strictness and debauchery... of its members. It has endured and also produced saints, various and numerous, despite our own particular failings.

This Eucharist at issue must be more than a symbol, remote and divorced from the One who instituted it, if one simply looks at the evidence. This Church has never renounced it, never undermined it, and gathered great strength from it. The enemy, on the other hand, never ceases to desecrate it and mock it.

The devil attacks the Eucharist. If it was merely a symbol, he would not care for it.

Can someone also explain to me how the human nature of Christ, one of the two natures of Christ which are distinct, yet in union and not transferable to one another (or each would not remain two distinct and separate natures in union) can be physically omnipresent in the Eucharist? If that were so, then his human nature would not be 100% man as a man can only be present in one place at one time.

Can a fully human person be hung from a Cross until dead and then physically resurrect? Can a person come back to life and have someone else actually put his hand into his wounds?

Can God Almighty be present in the form of bread and wine if he wills it... ?

Since you don't like me answering a question with a question, I'll just simply offer a statement in answer. It seems to me that you're creating a false dichotomy between spirit and matter (i.e., the flesh) as if the two can have no union with each other, as if the things of the spirit cannot manifest themselves through matter. Why can bread and wine not be united to Christ through the Holy Spirit such that they become Christ's body and blood and thereby communicate to us the life of the Spirit?

Why would Jesus speak figuratively of his blood as the "fruit of the vine" if it was his literal blood?

Maybe because when the wine becomes His blood, it never ceases to ALSO remain what it was. After all, how many priests have not become a bit tipsy on occasion upon consuming what remains of Holy Communion after distributing it to the faithful?

Can someone also explain to me how the human nature of Christ, one of the two natures of Christ which are distinct, yet in union and not transferable to one another (or each would not remain two distinct and separate natures in union) can be physically omnipresent in the Eucharist? If that were so, then his human nature would not be 100% man as a man can only be present in one place at one time.

CORRECTION: Pre-resurrection man can only be in one place at one time. What can be said of pre-resurrection man, however, cannot be said of Jesus Christ, Who now lives in His glorified post-resurrection form.

I've never quite understood the Protestant objection to the Eucharist.

Firstly because when many people read "Eucharist" a red flag goes up and they think Rome, slippery slope, shut my ears, idolatry, Mary, switch off and think of scripture before the devil gets a foothold in my mind. If we do manage to view the bull in its natural habitat rather than with our red flags prepping for a fight, then we'd probably realise it's not the scary beast we thought it was.

Quote

Everything else in Christianity is just as improbably: the Trinity, the Incarnate God, Baptism, the indwelling Holy Spirit, etc.

Equally improbable they might be but God in three persons, the Incarnation, baptism and the indwelling Holy Spirit are fairly explicit in scripture where as the 'real presence' in the bread and wine is not, at least to us it's not.

Secondly, to worship anything other than God Himself is wrong and very seriously wrong (as you'd agree) and to us, this is worship that is due to God alone being given to an act that is for us, a representation of a spiritual truth.

Quote

I think you would have just as hard of a time convincing a die-hard atheist that the bread and wine are Body and Blood as you would convincing him that God dwells within you and speaks to you!

#laughs -- yes we would!

Quote

From pure physics, nothing of Christianity makes sense. It all appears to be impossible nonsense, and so you can't really use a strictly rational process to figure it out. If you did, I think that I could very easily disprove all of it, and even the faith of those who 'claim' to have the Holy Spirit but are such reprehensible fools that their claims of divine connection automatically exclude any such possibility: a perfect Being would not waste His time with such a transparently self-impressed moron.

We are all poor representatives of Him.

I agree we are at time and at other times we manage by his grace and mercy to get things right and make amazing strides forward, usually when we manage to be humble, then we're at our most useful.[/quote]

Quote

At the same time, if one approaches not from the 'how' but from the 'what,' it all is obvious. The Church has outlasted horrific persecution and decadence, heresy and carelessness, hyper-strictness and debauchery... of its members. It has endured and also produced saints, various and numerous, despite our own particular failings.

This Eucharist at issue must be more than a symbol, remote and divorced from the One who instituted it, if one simply looks at the evidence.

You have no idea how much I wish it were that simple Father.

Quote

This Church has never renounced it, never undermined it, and gathered great strength from it.

Unfortunately knowing that doesn't fill me with confidence as it does yourself.

Quote

The enemy, on the other hand, never ceases to desecrate it and mock it.The devil attacks the Eucharist. If it was merely a symbol, he would not care for it.

I don't see the logic in that Father, i'm sorry. The devil will get Christian v Christian fighting and arguing about anything petty or significant. How many Christians argue over tithing and songs vs hymns? The fact that it's an issue doesn't prove its significance at all.

* * *

Quote

Just as bread and wine can be Body and Blood, so can words be Spirit and Life. See how this words? What God does is not what man does. He thoughts are not our thoughts, and His works are not our works. Just because Jesus Christ speaks Spirit and Life does not mean He does not use words. The words don't stop being words, just as the form of bread and wine remain the same.

Do you see the comparison? If His words can be something else in addition to their common existence, so can other things.

I think i see what you're saying but i just think in this sense he meant that he was speaking of spiritual matters, simply just that. He was trying to communicate a spiritual truth.

Quote

As for the passage in St. Matthew, it is plainly obvious what is happening: He is preparing to be arrested and crucified, something the Apostles do not yet understand (which is why they run).

The fulfillment of the Eucharist is the New Jerusalem, when we are resurrected with Him and the final re-communion of God and man is accomplished. Until that time, we drink of the cup as He commanded us.

Does this answer your question?

Umm... it probably does but i just need to let it settle for a while.

« Last Edit: January 14, 2012, 04:23:14 PM by FountainPen »

Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain

I know a lot has been thrown at you at once, and most of it will take time to sink in. Orthodoxy is a very different way of thinking, and changing the way we think is one of the hardest tasks for mankind.

I don't think the Scriptures are any less explicit about the Eucharist as they are about any of the other Mysteries of the Church: otherwise, we would not have so many disagreements as you pointed out. Even the Divinity of Christ and the Trinity, which you say are very clear, have not been so, historically-speaking. I purposefully mentioned those things to see if you would make the connections.

I've never quite understood the Protestant objection to the Eucharist.

Firstly because when many people read "Eucharist" a red flag goes up and they think Rome, slippery slope, shut my ears, idolatry, Mary, switch off and think of scripture before the devil gets a foothold in my mind. If we do manage to view the bull in its natural habitat rather than with our red flags prepping for a fight, then we'd probably realise it's not the scary beast we thought it was.

Quote

Everything else in Christianity is just as improbably: the Trinity, the Incarnate God, Baptism, the indwelling Holy Spirit, etc.

Equally improbable they might be but God in three persons, the Incarnation, baptism and the indwelling Holy Spirit are fairly explicit in scripture where as the 'real presence' in the bread and wine is not, at least to us it's not.

Secondly, to worship anything other than God Himself is wrong and very seriously wrong (as you'd agree) and to us, this is worship that is due to God alone being given to an act that is for us, a representation of a spiritual truth.

Quote

I think you would have just as hard of a time convincing a die-hard atheist that the bread and wine are Body and Blood as you would convincing him that God dwells within you and speaks to you!

#laughs -- yes we would!

Quote

From pure physics, nothing of Christianity makes sense. It all appears to be impossible nonsense, and so you can't really use a strictly rational process to figure it out. If you did, I think that I could very easily disprove all of it, and even the faith of those who 'claim' to have the Holy Spirit but are such reprehensible fools that their claims of divine connection automatically exclude any such possibility: a perfect Being would not waste His time with such a transparently self-impressed moron.

We are all poor representatives of Him.

I agree we are at time and at other times we manage by his grace and mercy to get things right and make amazing strides forward, usually when we manage to be humble, then we're at our most useful.

Quote

At the same time, if one approaches not from the 'how' but from the 'what,' it all is obvious. The Church has outlasted horrific persecution and decadence, heresy and carelessness, hyper-strictness and debauchery... of its members. It has endured and also produced saints, various and numerous, despite our own particular failings.

This Eucharist at issue must be more than a symbol, remote and divorced from the One who instituted it, if one simply looks at the evidence.

You have no idea how much I wish it were that simple Father.

Quote

This Church has never renounced it, never undermined it, and gathered great strength from it.

Unfortunately knowing that doesn't fill me with confidence as it does yourself.

Quote

The enemy, on the other hand, never ceases to desecrate it and mock it.The devil attacks the Eucharist. If it was merely a symbol, he would not care for it.

I don't see the logic in that Father, i'm sorry. The devil will get Christian v Christian fighting and arguing about anything petty or significant. How many Christians argue over tithing and songs vs hymns? The fact that it's an issue doesn't prove its significance at all.

* * *

Quote

Just as bread and wine can be Body and Blood, so can words be Spirit and Life. See how this words? What God does is not what man does. He thoughts are not our thoughts, and His works are not our works. Just because Jesus Christ speaks Spirit and Life does not mean He does not use words. The words don't stop being words, just as the form of bread and wine remain the same.

Do you see the comparison? If His words can be something else in addition to their common existence, so can other things.

I think i see what you're saying but i just think in this sense he meant that he was speaking of spiritual matters, simply just that. He was trying to communicate a spiritual truth.

Quote

As for the passage in St. Matthew, it is plainly obvious what is happening: He is preparing to be arrested and crucified, something the Apostles do not yet understand (which is why they run).

The fulfillment of the Eucharist is the New Jerusalem, when we are resurrected with Him and the final re-communion of God and man is accomplished. Until that time, we drink of the cup as He commanded us.

Can someone also explain to me how the human nature of Christ, one of the two natures of Christ which are distinct, yet in union and not transferable to one another (or each would not remain two distinct and separate natures in union) can be physically omnipresent in the Eucharist? If that were so, then his human nature would not be 100% man as a man can only be present in one place at one time.

Can a fully human person be hung from a Cross until dead and then physically resurrect? Can a person come back to life and have someone else actually put his hand into his wounds?

Can God Almighty be present in the form of bread and wine if he wills it... ?

Marc, can you not see the reason i'm questioning it is because the implications of Christ's human body being in more than one place? If that were so, it would mean he wasn't fully human and that would present a serious problem with His nature. I'm not questioning it because i don't think it possible -- anything is possible to God.

I'm not sure i'm with Peter on the 'glorified body' issues either -- I don't know.

« Last Edit: January 15, 2012, 02:52:58 AM by FountainPen »

Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain

Since you don't like me answering a question with a question, I'll just simply offer a statement in answer. It seems to me that you're creating a false dichotomy between spirit and matter (i.e., the flesh) as if the two can have no union with each other, as if the things of the spirit cannot manifest themselves through matter. Why can bread and wine not be united to Christ through the Holy Spirit such that they become Christ's body and blood and thereby communicate to us the life of the Spirit?

I don't think i do -- i think it just seems like that possibly because i'm not being clear. I'll try and think a little longer about my responses before i post them. I'm just reading what Chrysostom has to say about this verse so i'll get back to you about this in a bit.

Why would Jesus speak figuratively of his blood as the "fruit of the vine" if it was his literal blood?

Maybe because when the wine becomes His blood, it never ceases to ALSO remain what it was. After all, how many priests have not become a bit tipsy on occasion upon consuming what remains of Holy Communion after distributing it to the faithful?

Again i don't have an issue with that concept in general but whether that is what's happening here, i just can't accept that it's a mystery as an answer because i don't believe scripture permits us that in this case.

« Last Edit: January 15, 2012, 03:10:55 AM by FountainPen »

Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain

Do I believe that I am smarter, or somehow more intelligent, or better informed than the “Fathers” or the “Martyrs?”

No, because:(1) I do not know, I rely on scripture (2) in my reliance on Scripture, I am relying on what God has told me in 1 Corinthians 2:16 – I have the mind of Christ.

These things are not stated in my defense or as applying to me alone. These statements are true of any and all believers. A believer is one as defined in John 3:1‐18.

First of all your use of quote marks sickens me. These people died for Christ, show some respect.

Second, you also spit on the Anglicans and many Lutherans who also hold to the Real Presence out of a sense of sola scriptura. In fact, you've never met anyone more hard headed than a Lutheran defending Real Presence and they act exactly like you, "I'm just saying what Scripture says!" So, do they also have the mind of Christ?

Do the Jehovah's Witnesses who deny the Trinity and claim Christ is an angel possess the mind of Christ? How do you know they don't? Because Scripture plainly contradicts them? Well, they would also say Scripture plainly contradicts you?

See what I'm getting at? I'm not saying Orthodoxy does not share problems of knowing just what the Scriptures are saying, Tradition isn't a "magic bullet" that removes the need for critical thought, but it seems to me that relying on the witness of a existing body of believers that has been unanimous on the broad points (not saying their haven't been conflicts but the main doctrines of Orthodoxy are pretty much traceable in the Fathers back to the Apostolic age) makes a lot more sense that relying on yourself as an independent conduit of the Spirit who could theoretically be the last sane man on earth and the last true believer.

Piggy backing off my last post, now addressing FountainPen:

See where I'm going with this? You (the generic you) may not be a Lone Ranger, the only person in the world who's correct, now but there's nothing stopping you from being such in theory. Where's the importance of community in that? That's my biggest problem with the way you're reading Matthew 16. God wants to preserve a family, not a group of dead and alive ships passing in the night who just happen to share the same beliefs and atomic relationship to Him almost by accident.

Yes i do see...and it also presents the same problem for me, for the same reasons.

I'm going to need some time on this issue not because i don't have a response but because i need to think about it a little more. Thanks vol.

« Last Edit: January 15, 2012, 03:17:18 AM by FountainPen »

Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain

Can someone also explain to me how the human nature of Christ, one of the two natures of Christ which are distinct, yet in union and not transferable to one another (or each would not remain two distinct and separate natures in union) can be physically omnipresent in the Eucharist? If that were so, then his human nature would not be 100% man as a man can only be present in one place at one time.

Can you explain to me how 5 loaves and 2 fish filled the bellies of 5000 people plus 12 baskets? Others are not wrong to point out to you that Christ's glorified human body is not necessarily subject to the same rules as (what we consider) 'normal' human nature, but we really don't even have to go that far in speculating about what is 'natural' to such a body.

Again, i'm not suggesting it's not possible. I'm concerned about the impact this would have on His being 100% human.

Quote

Also, it's incorrect to say that His body is 'omnipresent'. It is present on the altar, in the chalice, in the body of believers, but it is not in the trunk of my car, it is not my computer screen, it is not on the moon (at least not until a church is built there). It is certainly present in more places than can be explained any way but miraculously (although, again, it is a miracle Christ actually demonstrated), but it is still present in only a finite number of places. There is no confusion between the human nature and Divine omnipresence in this.

Yes you're correct about this.

Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain

Do I believe that I am smarter, or somehow more intelligent, or better informed than the “Fathers” or the “Martyrs?”

No, because:(1) I do not know, I rely on scripture (2) in my reliance on Scripture, I am relying on what God has told me in 1 Corinthians 2:16 – I have the mind of Christ.

These things are not stated in my defense or as applying to me alone. These statements are true of any and all believers. A believer is one as defined in John 3:1‐18.

First of all your use of quote marks sickens me. These people died for Christ, show some respect.

Second, you also spit on the Anglicans and many Lutherans who also hold to the Real Presence out of a sense of sola scriptura. In fact, you've never met anyone more hard headed than a Lutheran defending Real Presence and they act exactly like you, "I'm just saying what Scripture says!" So, do they also have the mind of Christ?

Do the Jehovah's Witnesses who deny the Trinity and claim Christ is an angel possess the mind of Christ? How do you know they don't? Because Scripture plainly contradicts them? Well, they would also say Scripture plainly contradicts you?

See what I'm getting at? I'm not saying Orthodoxy does not share problems of knowing just what the Scriptures are saying, Tradition isn't a "magic bullet" that removes the need for critical thought, but it seems to me that relying on the witness of a existing body of believers that has been unanimous on the broad points (not saying their haven't been conflicts but the main doctrines of Orthodoxy are pretty much traceable in the Fathers back to the Apostolic age) makes a lot more sense that relying on yourself as an independent conduit of the Spirit who could theoretically be the last sane man on earth and the last true believer.

Piggy backing off my last post, now addressing FountainPen:

See where I'm going with this? You (the generic you) may not be a Lone Ranger, the only person in the world who's correct, now but there's nothing stopping you from being such in theory. Where's the importance of community in that? That's my biggest problem with the way you're reading Matthew 16. God wants to preserve a family, not a group of dead and alive ships passing in the night who just happen to share the same beliefs and atomic relationship to Him almost by accident.

Yes i do see...and it also presents the same problem for me, for the same reasons.

I'm going to need some time on this issue not because i don't have a response but because i need to think about it a little more. Thanks vol.

Can you explain to me how 5 loaves and 2 fish filled the bellies of 5000 people plus 12 baskets? Others are not wrong to point out to you that Christ's glorified human body is not necessarily subject to the same rules as (what we consider) 'normal' human nature, but we really don't even have to go that far in speculating about what is 'natural' to such a body.

Again, i'm not suggesting it's not possible. I'm concerned about the impact this would have on His being 100% human.

But that's exactly my point. Christ took 100% normal bread and by His divine power multiplied it. But it remained 100% normal bread. If Christ by His divine power multiplies His flesh how does that have any impact on whether it remains 'fully human'?

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

Can someone also explain to me how the human nature of Christ, one of the two natures of Christ which are distinct, yet in union and not transferable to one another (or each would not remain two distinct and separate natures in union) can be physically omnipresent in the Eucharist? If that were so, then his human nature would not be 100% man as a man can only be present in one place at one time.

Can a fully human person be hung from a Cross until dead and then physically resurrect? Can a person come back to life and have someone else actually put his hand into his wounds?

Can God Almighty be present in the form of bread and wine if he wills it... ?

Marc, can you not see the reason i'm questioning it is because the implications of Christ's human body being in more than one place? If that were so, it would mean he wasn't fully human and that would present a serious problem with His nature. I'm not questioning it because i don't think it possible -- anything is possible to God.

I'm not sure i'm with Peter on the 'glorified body' issues either -- I don't know.

The real problem is that we are dealing with two different types of religion. One born of the Western experience which was influenced by the "Enlightenment", and 19th Century Utilitarianism. In other words, you are concerned with Mechanics and from that starting point you want to Reason your way through. You need to know how things work.

You can also see this mind set in Roman Catholicism. They will give you, step by step, an explanation of how things are arranged and how they work.

The East, see's such a line of questioning as blasphemous. How God comes to us in the form of bread and wine is way above our pay grade. Trying to logic your way through the incomprehensible strikes us a crass.

The Scriptures are very clear. Christ institutes the Eucharist at the last Supper and hints at it even before. "This is my body" , Not "Here is a metaphor for my body that you can use as a tool as a way to remember me". The Church from it's earliest moments goes out and establishes Communion with Christ centered on the Eucharist and then continues with the same practice and the same understanding for 2,000 years. What more is necessary to know?

« Last Edit: January 15, 2012, 08:25:51 PM by Marc1152 »

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Since you don't like me answering a question with a question, I'll just simply offer a statement in answer. It seems to me that you're creating a false dichotomy between spirit and matter (i.e., the flesh) as if the two can have no union with each other, as if the things of the spirit cannot manifest themselves through matter. Why can bread and wine not be united to Christ through the Holy Spirit such that they become Christ's body and blood and thereby communicate to us the life of the Spirit?

I don't think i do -- i think it just seems like that possibly because i'm not being clear. I'll try and think a little longer about my responses before i post them. I'm just reading what Chrysostom has to say about this verse so i'll get back to you about this in a bit.

Why would Jesus speak figuratively of his blood as the "fruit of the vine" if it was his literal blood?

Maybe because when the wine becomes His blood, it never ceases to ALSO remain what it was. After all, how many priests have not become a bit tipsy on occasion upon consuming what remains of Holy Communion after distributing it to the faithful?

Again i don't have an issue with that concept in general but whether that is what's happening here, i just can't accept that it's a mystery as an answer because i don't believe scripture permits us that in this case.

i just can't accept that it's a mystery as an answer because i don't believe scripture permits us that in this case.

That is where Holy Tradition comes in. Saint after Saint, theologian after Theologian didnt miss a loophole.."Oh crap, we didn't think about Christ's human body being multiple places at once".. We don't reinvent Christianity with each new generation.. You cant accept the incomprehensible because you want to understand your Religion as if was a machine.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Do I believe that I am smarter, or somehow more intelligent, or better informed than the “Fathers” or the “Martyrs?”

No, because:(1) I do not know, I rely on scripture (2) in my reliance on Scripture, I am relying on what God has told me in 1 Corinthians 2:16 – I have the mind of Christ.

These things are not stated in my defense or as applying to me alone. These statements are true of any and all believers. A believer is one as defined in John 3:1‐18.

And so because of what you interpret this verse to mean, you are now able to make infallible determinations regarding interpretation of scripture? What about all the millions of other Christians who come up with contradictory interpretations when reading the scriptures? What do you say to them? Is the mind of Christ divided?

How does BGTF know that he has the mind of Christ? Did he agree with himself, or did somebody else tell him that?

I think he probably was quoting

1 Corinthians 2:6-16

Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain

How does BGTF know that he has the mind of Christ? Did he agree with himself, or did somebody else tell him that?

I think he probably was quoting

1 Corinthians 2:6-16

I don't think that answers biro's question, though. How does BGTF know he has the mind of Christ when BGTF goes to such lengths to disparage the Holy Apostles themselves, the very Apostles who revealed the mind of Christ to us?

So, can you have the mind of Christ and be wrong? St. Peter was, and I think he knew far more than you Alfred BGTF. The difference is that the Church, not individuals in-and-of themselves, can not be overcome by the gates of hell. You quote scripture, but then cast it aside when it does not serve your purposes. You cant have it both ways.

As a former protestant, that is something that I see is the major problem with Protestantism (especially Sola Scriptura and sola fide). It uses scripture as a proof text, but discount what the rest of scripture says (and what history says) to refute their ideas.

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

So, can you have the mind of Christ and be wrong? St. Peter was, and I think he knew far more than you Alfred BGTF. The difference is that the Church, not individuals in-and-of themselves, can not be overcome by the gates of hell. You quote scripture, but then cast it aside when it does not serve your purposes. You cant have it both ways.

As a former protestant, that is something that I see is the major problem with Protestantism (especially Sola Scriptura and sola fide). It uses scripture as a proof text, but discount what the rest of scripture says (and what history says) to refute their ideas.

PP

I think the process is 1. Start with your conclusion 2. Find passages in Scripture and back into them

The question is then are you willing to apply the wisdom of Holy Tradition. They find passages the COULD mean what they need it to mean. We then have to say, it COULD mean that. How do you then know? Orthodox would then look and see how the passage has been held throughout the history of Christianity. If there is a consistent conclusion then that is what informs us, not our personal preference or only things within our comfort zone.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

So, can you have the mind of Christ and be wrong? St. Peter was, and I think he knew far more than you Alfred BGTF. The difference is that the Church, not individuals in-and-of themselves, can not be overcome by the gates of hell. You quote scripture, but then cast it aside when it does not serve your purposes. You cant have it both ways.

As a former protestant, that is something that I see is the major problem with Protestantism (especially Sola Scriptura and sola fide). It uses scripture as a proof text, but discount what the rest of scripture says (and what history says) to refute their ideas.

PP

I think the process is 1. Start with your conclusion 2. Find passages in Scripture and back into them

Fantastic way of explaining it.

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

How does BGTF know that he has the mind of Christ? Did he agree with himself, or did somebody else tell him that?

I think he probably was quoting

1 Corinthians 2:6-16

I don't think that answers biro's question, though. How does BGTF know he has the mind of Christ when BGTF goes to such lengths to disparage the Holy Apostles themselves, the very Apostles who revealed the mind of Christ to us?

What makes you think i was trying to answer Biro's question?

I was simply providing the context for where BGTF's statement might have originated.

Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain

So, can you have the mind of Christ and be wrong? St. Peter was, and I think he knew far more than you Alfred BGTF. The difference is that the Church, not individuals in-and-of themselves, can not be overcome by the gates of hell. You quote scripture, but then cast it aside when it does not serve your purposes. You cant have it both ways.

As a former protestant, that is something that I see is the major problem with Protestantism (especially Sola Scriptura and sola fide). It uses scripture as a proof text, but discount what the rest of scripture says (and what history says) to refute their ideas.

PP

I think the process is 1. Start with your conclusion 2. Find passages in Scripture and back into them

The question is then are you willing to apply the wisdom of Holy Tradition. They find passages the COULD mean what they need it to mean. We then have to say, it COULD mean that. How do you then know? Orthodox would then look and see how the passage has been held throughout the history of Christianity. If there is a consistent conclusion then that is what informs us, not our personal preference or only things within our comfort zone.

Oh you mean Holy Tradition? Let's start with the feast concerning the virgin Mary entering into the temple? One of the twelve major feasts i believe and certainly not without large areas of discrepancy. If you want to start a tone of ridicule in this thread Marc, then let's start with this feast and we can move on to other fundamental issues within Orthodoxy and examine them in the same tone shall we?

This is why i don't like your posts.

I do listen, i do think about what people say, i do give Orthodox explanations careful and prayerful consideration and i do apologise when i step over the line and offend. So I don't deserve the same treatment that you would give to someone who is only interested in the sound of their own voice and closed minded to any other possibilities.

« Last Edit: January 17, 2012, 02:49:53 PM by FountainPen »

Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain

How does BGTF know that he has the mind of Christ? Did he agree with himself, or did somebody else tell him that?

I think he probably was quoting

1 Corinthians 2:6-16

I don't think that answers biro's question, though. How does BGTF know he has the mind of Christ when BGTF goes to such lengths to disparage the Holy Apostles themselves, the very Apostles who revealed the mind of Christ to us?

What makes you think i was trying to answer Biro's question?

You framed your reply around a quote from biro. Most people do that as a way of responding directly to the person being quoted, which implies pretty clearly that you were trying to answer biro's question.

I was simply providing the context for where BGTF's statement might have originated.

BGTF told us that he was citing 1 Corinthians 2:16, a verse with which many of us are familiar. There was therefore no need to provide the context for where BGTF's statement originated, because he already told us. That is, unless you thought it important to reiterate that in answer to biro's question.

Oh you mean Holy Tradition? Let's start with the feast concerning the virgin Mary entering into the temple? One of the twelve major feasts i believe and certainly not without large areas of discrepancy. If you want to start a tone of ridicule in this thread Marc, then let's start with this feast and we can move on to other fundamental issues within Orthodoxy and examine them in the same tone shall we?

I would like to hear your comments on the discrepancies.

Quote

So I don't deserve the same treatment that you would give to someone who is only interested in the sound of their own voice and closed minded to any other possibilities

As I was one of the ones you quoted, I would like to respond. In no way was I attacking anyone personally, or their beliefs. I was simply referencing what, to me, was what was going on based on personal experience. I look at how Luther tried to remove scripture that he didn't agree with, and how he tried in invalidate the Septuagint (by removing some of the OT, because a hebrew version did not exist) simply at his whim. To me, that is exactly what Marc was saying.

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

How does BGTF know that he has the mind of Christ? Did he agree with himself, or did somebody else tell him that?

I think he probably was quoting

1 Corinthians 2:6-16

I don't think that answers biro's question, though. How does BGTF know he has the mind of Christ when BGTF goes to such lengths to disparage the Holy Apostles themselves, the very Apostles who revealed the mind of Christ to us?

What makes you think i was trying to answer Biro's question?

You framed your reply around a quote from biro. Most people do that as a way of responding directly to the person being quoted, which implies pretty clearly that you were trying to answer biro's question.

I was simply providing the context for where BGTF's statement might have originated.

BGTF told us that he was citing 1 Corinthians 2:16, a verse with which many of us are familiar. There was therefore no need to provide the context for where BGTF's statement originated, because he already told us. That is, unless you thought it important to reiterate that in answer to biro's question.

Well, i might have been following Biro's example in reiterating an important bible verse

I think i was simply being cautious Peter as when i first got here i used to post quite a few verses as references to my posts but was playfully admonished for not quoting them in context.

Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain

Oh you mean Holy Tradition? Let's start with the feast concerning the virgin Mary entering into the temple? One of the twelve major feasts i believe and certainly not without large areas of discrepancy. If you want to start a tone of ridicule in this thread Marc, then let's start with this feast and we can move on to other fundamental issues within Orthodoxy and examine them in the same tone shall we?

I would like to hear your comments on the discrepancies.

Quote

So I don't deserve the same treatment that you would give to someone who is only interested in the sound of their own voice and closed minded to any other possibilities

As I was one of the ones you quoted, I would like to respond. In no way was I attacking anyone personally, or their beliefs. I was simply referencing what, to me, was what was going on based on personal experience. I look at how Luther tried to remove scripture that he didn't agree with, and how he tried in invalidate the Septuagint (by removing some of the OT, because a hebrew version did not exist) simply at his whim. To me, that is exactly what Marc was saying.

PP

Well it might be your personal experience but i am an individual and i'm certainly not treating Holy Scripture so lightly and i do take it as a grave accusation and it's somewhat tiresome to have it throw up as standard so often.

Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain

So, can you have the mind of Christ and be wrong? St. Peter was, and I think he knew far more than you Alfred BGTF. The difference is that the Church, not individuals in-and-of themselves, can not be overcome by the gates of hell. You quote scripture, but then cast it aside when it does not serve your purposes. You cant have it both ways.

As a former protestant, that is something that I see is the major problem with Protestantism (especially Sola Scriptura and sola fide). It uses scripture as a proof text, but discount what the rest of scripture says (and what history says) to refute their ideas.

PP

I think the process is 1. Start with your conclusion 2. Find passages in Scripture and back into them

The question is then are you willing to apply the wisdom of Holy Tradition. They find passages the COULD mean what they need it to mean. We then have to say, it COULD mean that. How do you then know? Orthodox would then look and see how the passage has been held throughout the history of Christianity. If there is a consistent conclusion then that is what informs us, not our personal preference or only things within our comfort zone.

Oh you mean Holy Tradition? Let's start with the feast concerning the virgin Mary entering into the temple? One of the twelve major feasts i believe and certainly not without large areas of discrepancy. If you want to start a tone of ridicule in this thread Marc, then let's start with this feast and we can move on to other fundamental issues within Orthodoxy and examine them in the same tone shall we?

This is why i don't like your posts.

I do listen, i do think about what people say, i do give Orthodox explanations careful and prayerful consideration and i do apologise when i step over the line and offend. So I don't deserve the same treatment that you would give to someone who is only interested in the sound of their own voice and closed minded to any other possibilities.

In all fairness to all parties- PP and Marc's comments were aimed at BGTF, not you, Fountain Pen. And I think you'd have to admit that BGTF's comments on this thread have been rather high-handed, arrogant, imperious, and well deserving of mockery. The whole "I have the mind of Christ but I cannot discern a spiritual reality" really takes the cake, especially in context of the "mind of Christ" passage so helpfully provided by you. To us, the presence of Christ in the Eucharist can only be apprehended spiritually, human reasoning only leads to a tangle of contradictions that do injustice to both the Eucharistic reality and to the idea of biblical literacy claimed to be in such high regard by many Protestants.

As for Marc's comments, he is not being entirely unfair. Having been raised Southern Baptists I have read more than a few books in my youth that start with the conclusion "All alcohol is bad and so any wine mentioned in a positive light must have been grape juice" followed by proof-texts of Scripture tortured out of context and reason to prove their point (the most egregious being completely ignoring the wine-taster's remarks in the Wedding of Cana passage. Grape juice indeed).

Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are." TH White

Well it might be your personal experience but i am an individual and i'm certainly not treating Holy Scripture so lightly and i do take it as a grave accusation and it's somewhat tiresome to have it throw up as standard so often

I can say with complete assuredness, nobody on here, of any Christian stripe, takes scripture lightly. If you think so, then you have a more fundemental problem going on.

Furthmore, it is not a accusation. Luther did these things, and admitted to it. He had deep reservations about some of the epistles, and the Book of James. He also got some of the old testament books removed because there was no hebrew copy. Its not an accusation, it is history AND something luther made no apology for.

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Can you explain to me how 5 loaves and 2 fish filled the bellies of 5000 people plus 12 baskets? Others are not wrong to point out to you that Christ's glorified human body is not necessarily subject to the same rules as (what we consider) 'normal' human nature, but we really don't even have to go that far in speculating about what is 'natural' to such a body.

Again, i'm not suggesting it's not possible. I'm concerned about the impact this would have on His being 100% human.

But that's exactly my point. Christ took 100% normal bread and by His divine power multiplied it. But it remained 100% normal bread. If Christ by His divine power multiplies His flesh how does that have any impact on whether it remains 'fully human'?

I've been mulling this over and wonder if you could clarify the Orthodox position regarding both the human and divine natures of Jesus. Is it that they are completely separate yet in unity?

Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain